Life is a journey. The destination is death. This blog is all about the musings of a sojourner in her thirties, curious about the stops, the fellow passengers, the driver(s), the conditions of travel and the highlights and lowlights. All the while in a place of tranquility: the sanctuary.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Shut Up and Cry me a River!

I have been chastised :-(

In a good way!

I agree with the chastisement, which boils down to: 'don't look at the negative aspect of life - for it may come back and bite you in the _________'.

But I have a slightly morbid fascination with separations once again.
Only this time, I hope to be more lighthearted about it.

Let's just say, this post is designed as a 'coolly detached' look at breakups.
Let's just say it is purely for the purposes of 'intellectual curiosity'.

And to this end, I apologise in advance to anyone who is currently going through a breakup, or is hurled back into the unpleasant memory of a breakup.

I think most adults have been through at least one breakup.

Some might even consider it a badge of honour of sorts, in the same way little boys consider a scar or a bruise as a sign that they are now MEN :-)

A priest I know of won't marry a couple unless they have broken up at least once.
This directly led a couple I know straight into hot water.

They had never broken up before their engagement. So to comply with the priest's known stance on this (and because they really really wanted to get married in this particular parish), they decided to fake a breakup (silly, I know! Hey, I thought it was funny too at the time - turns out I was just as immature as them, lol).

They told everyone they had broken up, including me (who happened to be in on the secret). Unfortunately, an old flame of the groom-to-be (who of course wasn't in the loop) thought the path was now clear for her to rekindle things with him...
The long and the short was that it turned out to be very embarrassing for all concerned, and the couple actually did break up for real, as a result of a series of unfortunate events.

Thankfully, things righted themselves, and they are now a very happy couple many years after their eventual marriage.

But I am sure their (bizarre) breakup helped in some way...

Breakups are of course mostly painful.
This is why I shall never understand the (mostly North American! - I never heard of this happening in Europe) trend of having a 'divorce party'.

Interestingly,
1. I have only seen this on TV. I never heard of anyone doing this in real life. (Does this actually happen in real life?)

2. It seems to be a uniquely female thing. I never heard of a man having a 'divorce party'. I think I get why.

3. It seems to be a modern trend. Which makes me suspect it is yet another feminist denial phenomenon like the 'I am so happy to be single' bandwagon.

4. It seems so inappropriate. Especially where there are children involved who are clearly distressed about the disintegration of their family, and are suffering as a result, eg. as evidenced by school fighting, poor grades, attempted suicide. So it seems so unbelievably cruel for someone to be 'celebrating' the divorce.

5. Even if the divorce seems 'liberating' as in the case of physical abuse, it still seems a bit sad to be celebrating said divorce.
It is like any death: even if the dead person is Hitler, it is still a death. Dancing on anyone's grave is still somehow bad. Better not to go to the funeral at all.
Is this a fair point?
Or are there instances where a party should be held when someone dies?
Consider this: Saddam Hussein's/Colonel Ghaddafi's deaths were not exactly a tragedy for many in their respective countries.
And yet, the scenes of glee after these men died seemed somehow equivalent to the same scenes of glee in some Arabic countries when 9/11 took place.
Is this a fair comparison?
Or is my assertion that a death is still a death, no matter whose, a travesty which will take me on a road to hell, which is, you know, paved with good intentions and all...

Dis-moi.
Tell me what you think. Hugely off-topic, but I am suddenly interested in this.

The film plot does not interest me so much as the song itself.
If ever there was a breakup song, this is it :-)

But what is interesting about this song is what some would call 'projection', the ultimate 'cardinal sin' of a woman.
Julie London claims to have 'cried a river' for Tom Ewell's character, and so she demands the same from him.
She wants a man to cry a river for her?
We all know that would never happen, don't we? :-)

Which reminds me of another breakup song with the same name.

Justin Timberlake's 'Cry me a river' was at the same time vicious and compelling because of its brutal honesty in revealing for all to see, how a man views a woman he believes has been unfaithful to him.
Scary viewing indeed. A window into a man's soul at the darkest moment of his life.

It is my genuine belief that most men do not like to see a woman cry.
They will tease her, mock her, even upset her, but the objective is not to make her cry.
Correct me gentlemen, if I have got this wrong!

But in this video, Justin makes it crystal clear that all gloves are off. He really wants to see this woman cry.
The problem is, unlike in Julie London's case, this woman will cry. Because he will ensure that she does. This is what makes this video truly dark.
And yet, one feels for him, and not the girl who hurt him.

I am not sure if my reaction to this video is normal or not. (Um, feel free to analyse this - I won't object!)
The video is at least ten years old. But it remins my reference point for 'feeeling' male pain when it comes to a painful breakup.

A less 'dark' picture of a breakup is presented by my old favourites, the Black eyed peas.
This is more of an 'anatomy of a deteriorating relationship' more than a 'breakup', but it illustrates quite poignantly the ways in which men and women react to a failing relationship.
I find it fascinating.

The only thing the man seems to be saying to the woman is...'shut up! Stop the talking, baby, or I start walking, baby!'
Hmmm. Where have I heard this before?
Men really are allergic to women's constant nuttering. Alles klar!
:-)

And the woman signs off her lament with 'is that all there is?'
But I can't help but feel for her when she exclaims 'I just want to be your lady!'
Awwwww.
This is sad. She admits to going almost insane because of this man.
But...she still wants to be his lady.
Gentlemen, you have no idea how some women feel about you :-)

I think the Black eyed peas are very good observers of human interaction.
This is why I find this video absolutely insightful.
And of course, the odd mix of 'faux classical' with 'urban-style' music is a source of interest all on its own for me anyway.

What does everyone think?
Are they right in their portrayal of man-woman interaction?

What esle is interesting about how men and women react to romantic separation?
Without making it too sombre, are there lessons to be learned from breakups?

PS: I have had to reintroduce the captcha due to excess spam. Hope this does not cause problems. If so, just let me know and I shall try to fix it.

Yes, of course if things are not working out, it is perfectly reasonable to depart.

If the other party won't or can't accept this, there is nothing you, as the instigator of the breakup can do. In this situation, you are not responsible for her tears.

What I refer to in the post is where a man really intends to make a woman cry. I find that this is quite rare (I really do believe that most men are 'magnanimous' about this), the only exception being that the woman has specifically hurt him in a significant way, eg. has been unfaithful, and he is 'fighting back'.

A woman instinctively knows she can't make a man cry. But I daresay, some women really do know how to hurt a man nonetheless...(And I mean delierately hurt him, as opposed to 'accidentally' hurt him where she has no idea that what she has done was a source of pain for him...).

JV,

"Divorce parties seem tacky and disrespectful."

I have to say, I agree.

But where did this trend come from?I suddenly started seeing this in North American sitcoms in the '90s.Is this part of the feminist machine for making divorce seem somehow 'attractive' and 'liberating' and 'fun/hip' in its non-stop quest to break up families?

I suspect so, but I don't really know. Anyone have a more concrete theory on this?

For those who really feel cut up about their impending or past divorce, seeing someone else 'celebrate' their divorce must be a real slap in the face, I imagine.

Vulnerability hurts, and these types of get togethers are a way of denying that. Then there's pride. They don't want people thinking that they're at home depressed and crying. Which sort of ties in with the other part of your post

"They don't want people thinking that they're at home depressed and crying."

Nothing wrong with being depressed and crying for a while, of course. Necessary, if you ask me.

Is this part of the 'I am a strong, independent woman' mindset?Show no weakness! On no account must I be seen to *gasp* cry.

Well, each to his own, I guess.

whilst I would have been too afriad of hurting someone's feelings if I had been invited to a 'divorce party' in the past (and would be itching to decline to go), I have decided now that from now on (knowing the harrows and devastation of divorce) I think I will decline the invitation if I ever get asked to one in the future, on principle.I doubt I would ever get such an invitation, however, since as I said earlier, this seems to be a North American thing...but most American trends end up in Europe eventually, so who knows...

@ Danny,This is probably why you are such a maestro with women!

You are a lucky man for knowing the intricasies of the women you date. Knowledge is power, as they say. Knowing someone helps one to understand that person better. Which (it seems to me) is a good thing.

It's part of the strong and independant thing I'm sure. But, it might be generational. I think that the expectation and raising to be non challant in pain is more of a gen x issue. I don't see as many of these parties among the younger women for divorces. Yhough they seem to have something similar for relationship break ups.

You may already know that I 'know' them already :-)They are 'friends' of Bellita and when Bellita had her blog up, Sheila was a regular commenter there. Bellita has used Sheila as an example of good female practice many times on this blog. For example, when Sheila mentioned that she followed John's leadership when he informed her he wanted traditional roles for them as husband and wife.

Some might see these two as 'ultra Catholic'.

Well, I happen to believe (as you clearly do) that their way is a very good way to live life. But then again, I would, wouldn't I, being a fellow Catholic...

"The best marriages I’ve known are between people each of whom sincerely believes married up."

You will never know how profoundly insightful I believe this comment of yours to be.I have NEVER thought about things in this light before. But now I am ever so grateful that someone has put this gem at my disposal.Precious!

That quote by Dante Alighieri is beautiful :-)And so true.

I PROMISE I shall stay away from negative concepts such as divorce and separation from now on. Scout's honour! :-)

I am now fixated on Sheila and John's model of marriage.Thank you for that positive image.

"Unfortunately, much of the Manosphere (to the extent it puts women down) is based on the envy of women. Which is why it isn't going to make a lot of men happy."

Hm.

IF there is an element of envy of women in the Manosphere, then yes, that element will not happy a man make.

But I really don't think it is about envy, Bob.I believe it is anything but, in fact.

Yes, whilst I think many men currently stuck in an unfortunate emotional state may never be truly happy again, I hesitate to put it down to envy of women. (This is the specific bit of your argument that kills it for me).It is more like RAGE against women (at least some women).

Whilst I agree that feminism was borne out of envy of men (something which I play on in my post about feminists and p-envy) I am not sure the same parallel can be used to describe the Manosphere. Why would men be envious of women?I really cannot think of one reason.

Could you elaborate?The problem for me is that it is not helpful to think of the Manosphere in this way, because it immediately shifts back the problem to the victim.And it has to be said, feminism has made victims of men (and some women too).

In trying to 'correct' the problem, simply saying that the Manosphere is a mirror image of feminism may be the wrong premise to begin on.

What does everyone else think?

PS: Much as it appears that I am an apologetic for the Manosphere, I think I am being quite logical (and therefore unbiased) on this particular point.

I am having trouble believing that men can envy women. It is wholly credible that women can envy men (the apex fallacy for example attemts to explain this phenomenon). I can totally see that a woman who devalues the role of motherhood for example, wants a different (i.e. the masculine) form of power, especially if she feels vulnerable in her feminine or matenal role (eg. if she has been abandoned by her provider and protector).

But the other way round, and I can't see it.In what ways can this be the case?

Would men ever want to be childbearers or child nurturers?

Would men want to be judged on their physical appearance?

Would men want to be in a position to be 'taken care of'?

Bob, I need your help on this!I am struggling to embrace this particular point of yours :-)

Forgive me for pushing you on this. I don't think we have addressed this exact point on this blog before. Now I am suddenly interested in it.Thanks for bringing this up.I hope we can nail this one down so that I can finally put it to rest :-)

Feminists envy the outward seminal power in the world that men have traditionally held.

There are some in the sphere who envy the inward magnetic attracting power and ability to manouver the opposite sex that women have traditionally held.

Rage ,as you've pointed out is a component. Though this is something I've noticed in hard core feminists as well.

To hold outward power or attractive power in and of itself doesn't constitute envy. In fact, we all have to have some of each to get our needs met. It's when we get into ball buster and ovary buster areas that we can see that there is something else taking place.

"There are some in the sphere who envy the inward magnetic attracting power and ability to manouver the opposite sex that women have traditionally held."

Yes. Mythologically women have been seen as nurturers and destroyers. Think the Borg Queen. A seductive destroyer. Or think of the movie "Body Heat."

When you think someone has the ability to make you happy and won't do it (or you think they won't do it) then there is rage and envy. That's what's happening with many women today. They're in an envious rage at men because they're not want women want them to be.

Then there is anger at women, much of which you see in the Manosphere, which puts women down because of envy, and that's why they are degraded with insulting terms such as "female solipsism," "hamsters," and other terms.

Definition of new terms isn't in and of itself degrading. There's "Demonstration of Lower Value", when I talked about it in the context of women, they were SURE it was an insult directed at them. Historically, the term is used for men to help conceptualize female opinion in a productive way.

It's well known in the mannosphere that women can't make men happy. They CAN, however, become a legal threat. Realizing that doesn't constitute hate, fear, or anger...merely reality.

Gratitude is a double edged sword. A man who has lived a life abused by women, should not be grateful for the abuse. He should learn from it, overcome it, maybe even accept it...but to be grateful for it would be to root for evil.

I think Bob's previous point was that some men of the mannosphere envy women based on the maximization of their life plans (mating schedule or imperative could also be used here). Only, as many mannosphere bloggers have pointed out, holding out for a rich, good looking professional jet setter with large muscles and airtight game while riding the cock carousel and popping out illegitimate children is a one way ticket to eternal single-mommyhood. They all make a compromise somewhere. Yes, there's a certain emotionalism with regards to women seeing natural consequences. I think it's justified.

It's redefinition. "Solipsism" is a philosophical problem. "Female solipsism" is really narcissism, and men are narcissists, too. "Shit tests"? Never seen it in my life. "Hamsters"?

The last two are insulting terms.

When people put other people down, and they don't deserve it, it's from anger/hate/envy/rage. That's why the uneducated use such terms as Dead White Male Patriarchal Capitalist White Privilege Slave-Owners. It's a attempt to bring others down out of envy because you think they are the cause of your problems. Think the serpent in the story of the Garden of Eden (which is a symbol of envy) attempting to "bring down" Adam and Eve.

Solipsism is a philosophical belief, either explicit or implicit, that the only thing truly and completely known to exist is the self. I wouldn't call it a "problem" as much as I would call it a type of self focus. In mannosphere terminology, a situational form of solipsism (they're talking about something bad, they must be talking about ME!) can lead to misunderstanding.

Shit tests are part of how people relate with each other. One of Roissy's prime examples has Joe Pesci shit testing another man for fun. They all have a good laugh after. As a fully blue pill Ceer, I've shit tested one of my girlfriends occasionally. When asking me why, I responded "because I'd like to give you a forum to explain what you're all about". Saying a woman shit tests is about as insulting as saying a man shit tests...which it isn't. It's a reasonable dynamic when not overdone.

The rationalization hamster is a term describing an overactive bout of rationalization, usually used in the context of providing a logical reason for engaging in willful behavior.

Men do all 3 of these, to one extent or another. You can mewl and haw about how this disproves the mannosphere if you like, but the fact is that it provides useful information. The terms are simply a byproduct of the human desire to bring order to this particular discipline.

I know you have to be the biggest, smartest guy in the room...that's just how you work. The more you focus on tearing down the mannosphere, the more you look like those "uneducated" who use such terms as "Dead White Male Patriarchal Capitalist White Privilege Slave-Owners". It's also why I'm reticent in revealing any of my personal details here. Such details could be used as an excuse to dismiss my ideas. A person's ideas should stand on their merits, not fall because of who holds them.

I think that everyone here would agree that looking for something equitable and just is quite reasonable. The culture and laws need to adjust the imballance. And that isn't going tohappen without individuals working to cut through the narrative that most people don't even question.

But I think JV in her point about women holding all the cards re attracting males (at least when young) rings somewhat true.Most men when young do not really know how to attract women in a way that is effective.Hence a lot of men are 'involuntarily celibate' as M3 described in his now famous post.The confidence that men need to attract women comes much later on their lives.

So I see what JV means. Women afterall, just need to exist, and they attract men.

But I still don't think that men are envious of this quality of women, as such. I think it's more a question of being frustrated at women for not using their 'assets' wisely...This is especially true of the older Mansophere bloggers who seek to advise women.

JV,

"ovary buster"...

Hahahahahahaha!I have never heard this term before - this is a first for me!Very clever...